construction manager Kit Fleming

engineer Peng Li

architect Xiang Liu

owner Hans Verheij

Collaboration in Cyberspace

E X P R E S S T E A M 2 0 0 2 . C E E 2 2 2 . A E C G L O B A L T E A M C L A S S 2 0 0 2

Team Introduction

• Multi-disciplinary, collaborative teamwork in a building project

• Apply discipline knowledge and technologies.

• Knowledge management.

• The year is 2015

• A 3-story building

• Total fund, $5,500,000

• Maintain the footprint of the existing buildings

• A collection of rare cactus varieties about 16,000 square feet is protected by the “Society Environmental Desert Studies.”

Requirements

Project Goal

The campus map of Express University

The site map of new engineering school

Location

Express University is located in Phoenix, Arizona.

Climate/Weather

Annual average temperature is 61F.

Annual rainfall is 7.6 inch

Site Map

The site map of new engineering school

• Good use of materials

• Insulation Concerns

• Aesthetic taste to enrich environment

Analysis of Context

The site map of new engineering school

• Cactus, a typical plant in a desert environment

• A collection of rare cactus varieties between two footprints

• Other green plants on campus

Analysis of Landscape

A collection of cactus

Outside public space

Entrance to each footprint

Subdivided roads

Main roads

Analysis of Circulation

static dynamic

Design Concept

• static status

• regular geometric forms

• solid exterior look

• symmetrical layout

conversation

The silent conversation between desert and architecture

static

Design I Concept

The relationship of three layers of lines along X, Y, Z axis 21 3

2

Vertical circulation of the building

The first layer of lines is along the footprint.

The second layer of lines reveals the horizontal lines along X, Y axis.

The third layer of lines displays the relationship between horizontal and vertical lines.

1

3

Design I Analysis

Auditorium, technical supportSmall classroomInstructional lab

MEP

The First Floor Plan

-7’-1’ 0’

14’

27’

40’

58’

116’

58’

Design I Drawings & Models

Student office

SeminarBig classroomStorage

Computer machine roomSmall classroom

The Second Floor Plan

Winterthur Museum of Art Extension

West Elevation

Design I Drawings

N

Faculty officeFaculty loungeMEPChair’s office Secretaries Senior admin. office

The Third Floor Plan

0’

14’

27’

40’

Design I Drawings & Details

• Climate

39 °FLow temperature in Jan

105 °FHigh temperature in July

0.1”Annual snow fall

7.6”Average rain

61°FAverage temperature

• Soil conditions

Bearing capacity: 5ksf

No expansive soil

• Earthquake free

Site Issues

Earthquake Locations

Gravity Loads

Gravity load path——Steel Braced frames

Gravity load path——Two way slabs

Gravity Loads

Lateral Loads

Wind Zone Map

Lateral load path —— Concrete MRF

Lateral Loads

Lateral load path —— Braced frames

“Simplicity and functionality through early collaboration and exchange of ideas, inspirations and constraints.”

• Simple

• Regular

• Least intrusive structural system

• Constructability

• Lower budget

Design Goals

Option 1 -- Framing

Framing Plan

Laterally Braced Frame

• 2VLI20 composite deck with 2.5” light weight concrete slab

• Beam & Girder: full composite with slab

• 6”x6” HSS shape braces

• Column size: W14x68

• 10” concrete walls

Structural Options

• Composite floor system

• Laterally braced frame

• Cast-in-place concrete walls in elevator shaft

• Spread footings

Option 1: Option 2:• Concrete frame

• One-way slab

• Waffle slab in auditorium

Option 1

entrance

main entrance

First floor

Second floor

Third floor

Matching The Architectural Plan

Option 1 -- Sizes

Typical Sizes:

2VLI20, 2.5”

W18x119

W16x40

W21x48

W21x48

10” wall

Option 1 -- Foundation

Foundation Plan

Foundation Plan:

• Shallow foundation

• Spread footing under columns, with size of 8’x8’

• Strip footing under concrete walls, with a width of 4’

Option 1 -- Connection

Typical connections

Beam-Girder

Girder-Column webGirder-Column flange

Beam Splice

Option 2 -- Framing

1st Floor Framing Plan 2nd and 3rd Floor Framing Plan

Framing Plan——Concrete Frame:

Option 2 -- SizesTypical Element Sizes:

•One way slab

Depth: 7”

Steel: #3@6”

3@3=9"2.5" 2.5"2.5"

2.5"

16.5"#3@10"

Beam Column section

2@4=8"3"

3"

3"

12"#3@14"

3"

Beam Section Column Section

•Beams

14” x 21.5”

6#7 bars

#3@10” Ties

•Columns

18” x 18”

6#7 bars

#3@14” Ties

Option 2 -- Waffle Slab

Waffle Slab:

Waffle slab

•4.5” slab

•Total depth: 22.5”

•30”x30” voids

•6” ribs

Top View

Option 2 -- Foundation

A A

Raft Footing

A - A

Pros and Cons

Options Pros Cons

Steel Braced FrameSpread Footing

•Regular framing plan•Simple connection•Easy construction•Inexpensive•Simple foundation

• Large and heavy beams in auditorium

• Exterior brace conflicts with architect’s vision

• Possible differential settlement

Concrete FrameRaft Footing

• Pre-cast• No differential

settlement• More redundant in

LFR system

• More form work on waffle slab

• Thick footing and more reinforcement

• More expensive

Layout1

Design I Static

Material Lay down

Cactus

Crane

Wash Out/Pump Area

Material Lay Down

Parking

Trailers

Design I Concept

Alternative 1- Steel Brace Frame

Alternative 2- MRF Pre-Cast

Waffle Slab

Design I Static

Cost Analysis

$3,672,990 Total

$122/SF

$4,126,376 Total

$137/SF

Alternative 2- MRF Pre-Cast

Waffle SlabAlternative 1- Steel Brace

Frame

Design I StaticCost

Breakdown

$24,087 $255,264

$923,099

$580,683

$232,753

$549,857

$82,345

$713,715

$22,869$217,788

$445,503

$547,950

$278,553

$532,027

$81,570

$690,045

Design I Static

Alt 1- Steel

Start- 9/2/14

Occupancy- 7/11/16

Alt 2-MRF Pre-Cast

Occupancy June 3th ‘16

Occupancy July 11th ‘16

Foundation Complete 10/11/15

3rd Floor Steel Complete

11/5/16

Building Enclosed 1/14/16

Foundation Complete 10/16/15

Waffle Slab Complete 11/9/15

Building Enclosed 1/29/16

Schedule Comparison

Design I ConceptDesign I Static

Alternative 1- Steel Brace Frame

Alternative 2- MRF Pre Waffle Slab

Pros and Cons

•Fast Construction

•Cheap

•Simple Layout

Pro:

Con:•Site Access

•Heavy Beams in Auditorium

Pro:

Con:•Waffle Slab

•Expensive

•Uniform Members

•Speed of Erection

conversation

The echo of conversation between desert and architecture

dynamic

• Dynamic status

• Façade

• Colors

• Angled partition walls

• Irregular circulation

Design II Concept

21 3

Vertical circulation of the building

The first dynamic element is the form.

The second dynamic element is partition angled walls.

The third dynamic element is the color.

Three dynamic elements

2

1

3

Design II Analysis

why architects love colors ?

Chapel of St. Ignatius by Steven HollBerlin IBA housing by Zaha Hadid

Kamioka Town Hall by Arata Isozaki

Shukosha Building by Arata Isozaki

Sports Center Davos by Annette Gigon + Mike Guyer

Colors represent nature

Colors light the space

Colors may function as landmark

Colors have symbolic meaning

Colors lift spirit

Design II Color Coding

Auditorium, technical supportSeminar

Instructional lab

MEP

The First Floor Plan

Small classroom

West Elevation

38’ 76’

114’

Design II Drawings & Models

N

Big classroomStudent officeComputer machine room

The Second Floor Plan

SeminarMEPSmall classroom

0’

14’

27’

43’

-4’ -1’

Design II Drawings & Models

Faculty office

Chair’s office, Secretary, Senior admin. office

Faculty lounge

The Third Floor Plan

MEPSmall courtyard

0’

14’

27’

40’

-6’ -1’

Hamburg Music School A House by Morphosis

Design II Drawings & Details

Angled walls and colors imply movement

Sequential spatial layout

Design II Movement

Structural Options

• Composite floor system

• Steel MRF

• Concrete walls in elevator shaft

• Strip footings

Option 1: Option 2:• Cast-In-Place Concrete frame

• Flat slab

• Strip footing along exterior columns

Option 1 -- Framing

Moment Resistant Frame

W14x26

W16x50

W18x50

2VLI20, 2.5”

W14x68 column

Option 1

First floor

Second floor

Third floor

Matching The Architectural Plan

Option 1 -- Foundation

Foundation Plan

Foundation Plan:

• Shallow foundation

• Spread footing under interior columns, 8’x8’

• Strip footing under external columns, with a width of 4’

Option 2 -- Framing

Framing Plan

12”x18” beam

8” two way slab

10” concrete wall

14”x14” column

Option 2 -- Two-way slab

Slab

Column

Shear reinforcing

Flat slab with drop panel

Typical span: 25’x25’

Pros and Cons

Options Pros Cons

Steel MRF

• Prefabrication possible

• Inexpensive• Simple foundation, no

much excavation work

• Complex moment resistant connection

• Less space for MEP

Concrete Frame

• Large clear space for MEP system

• Less concrete and reinforcing

• Simple foundation

• Cast-In-Place concrete

• More form work

Layout 2

Cactus

Trailers

Crane

Material Lay Down

Material Lay down

Parking

Wash Out/Pump Area

Parking

Design II Dynamic

Alternative 1- MRF Steel Alternative 2- Flat Slabs

Cost Analysis

$3,715,073 Total

$125/SF

$3,846,427 Total

$129/SF

Design II Dynamic

Alternative 1- MRF Steel Alternative 2- Flat Slabs

Design II Dynamic

$23,936 $229,392

$628,224

$622,325

$284,511

$590,195

$85,345

$713,175

$23,817$228,901

$487,601

$628,205

$283,956

$581,075

$85,345

$709,609

Cost Breakdown

Schedule Comparison

Alt 1- MRF Steel

Alt 2-Flat Slabs

Start- 9/2/14

End- 7/29/15

Occupancy June 15th ‘15

Foundation Complete 10/16/14

3rd Floor Steel Complete 11/17/15

Building Enclosed

2/2/15

Structural System

Complete 12/15/14

Building Enclosed 2/19/15

Foundation Complete 10/17/14 Occupancy July29th ‘15

Design II DynamicSchedule

Comparison

Design I Concept

Pros and Cons

•Fast Construction

•Simple Foundation

Pro:

Con:•Difficult Connections

•More Expensive

Pro:

Con:•Longer Schedule

•Less Pre-Fabrication

•No Beams

•Site Access

Design II Dynamic

Alternative 1- MRF Steel Alternative 2- Flat Slabs

Decision Matrix

CONCEPT 1

+ PROS - CONS

A

E

C

• Regular framing

• Simple connection

• Large and heavy beams

• Unsymmetric

• Easy accessibility

• Big public open space

• Interesting details

• Unexciting interior space

• Less active in existing environment

• Simple connection/framing

• Cheap, Fast Schedule

• Waffle Slab, Expensive

• Site Access

Decision Matrix

CONCEPT 2

+ PROS - CONS

A

E

C

• Larger space for MEP

• Symmetric

• Irregular overhanging

• More form work

• More difficult connection

• Playing active role

• Concerning movements

• Interesting interior space

• No big open space

• Potential conflict to MEP system

• Site Access

• Smaller Beam Sizes

• More Expensive, Longer Construction

• Irregular 3rd Floor

Valuable Lessons

• Do not wait until last minutes!!!

• Team iteration is critical to achieve a better structural design.

• Be prepared before discussion.

Improvements

• More contact with owner and mentors.

• Faster and more frequent iteration.

• Learn more about other disciplines.

• Early sharing of information, even if incomplete

Thanks

Thanks to Mentors and Owner

Special thanks to all AEC classmates